A-10 in WWII??

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message ...
the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.

Correction: a hungarian design from 1944.

Except for slightly W-shaped wing, the plane looked just like the A-10.
It was powered by two Jumo or BMW made 8kN turbines. It was 3/4th
completed, when the factory was overrun by the front. Supposedly the
plane's parts and drawings were captured by the USA and hauled overseas.

The three-view drawing of the plane was featured on the back cover of a
1976 copy of the hungarian monthly paper "Repules". It was quite unusual
for a communist state-run paper to feature a nazi plane at that time.

.... when were US troops overrunning Hungary in 1945? The only attack
aircraft 3/4+ finished that was to use either a Jumo 004 or BMW 003
that was captured was the Hs-132. It bears no resemblence to the A-10
and is NOT of hungarian origin.
The only aircraft captured by the Luftwaffe in Hungary were Zlin
aircraft, most of which were gliders and obsolete types. What
Hungarian design are you refering to in the news article? AFAIK, no
German jet engines were destined for any Hungarian project. Only Italy
and Japan were to recieve those. Regianne never got theirs and the
Japanese IIRC only recieved photos and manuals from which they built
indigenous copies.

Rob

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message ...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Eunometic" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...

The Mk103 had 140mm of penetration when firing tungsten cored
amunition from a FW190. From the faster jet it would have
been more.

Of course not having any tungsten to spare this was
rather academic

Tungsten shortage was a serious problem for the Germans as was nickel
(for jet engines and used only for hardening the superior armor of the
Tiger other tanks like Panther didn't get this metal)

Nevertheless the Germans had small amounts of tungsten cored
ammunition available for the 75mm, 88mm for the Tiger and Panther and
AT guns. These rounds were only rarely available but were useful
for dealing with the heaviest soviet tanks. Early in the war, when
tungsten was a little more common, it was the only way they could
penetrate the T34 with their undersized for the task 50mm canon. (It
was called arrow head ammunition)

Tungsten was reserved for use in Anti Tank rounds for the 37mm and
30mm airborne use. The 30mm round having the same penetration as the
37mm round. This was 110mm but more like 140 with the forward
motion of the aircraft.

The primary and most important use of tungsten was for hardening
machine tools.

In one of your posts you noted that the Germans used uranium as a
substitute for tungsten in hardening machine tools. I wonder if they
might have used it to harden ammunition? It may even have led to the
use of Uranium cores by serendipity. The Germans had their own
indigenous uranium mines.


Its possible, there was certainly no shortage of Uranium
as there were huge stocks in Belgium imported for
the extraction of Radium

About 1200 tons according to Richard Rhodes. That's not huge stocks on the
scale of munitions manufacture, about half a million projectiles worth. A
lot, but not huge.


I'm not sure exactly how much uranium is actualy used in the alloy.
The current alloy is called U3T4 and is uranium and 3/4% Titanium but
I believe early uranium cores had relatively low levels of DU. The
pure metal is in fact quite soft. So not all that much uranium would
have been necessary.

German engineers developed highly effective anti-tank ammunition using
sub-caliber tungsten carbide penetrators. A so called series of taper
bore or squeeze guns. Guns designed to fire this ammunition were much
lighter and more mobile than their Allied equivalents and were among
the most powerful anti-tank guns of the war, but shortages of tungsten
forced their abandonment in 1942 when the remaining amunition was used
up and the guns were scrapped however they did see service.

http://users.belgacom.net/artillery/...erie/3958.html

The 75mm cartrige Krupp Pak 41 was able to outperform the British
76.2mm 17 pounder but at only 65% of the weight: 1.3 tons versus 2
tons.

The Germans had supplies from Austrian mines at least of Uranium and
almost had a world molopoly that squeezed the French out of the
Uranium market but for discoveries in her colonies and Portugual. The
French I believe had developed Uranium as a hardening alloys as early
as 1907 but were unscucesfull at marketing the product. (There is a
history of Uranium on the web) and the Germans were apparently using
it as a substitute for tungsten for some pusposes. (haven't been able
to confirm this). It just occured to me that they might have used
this to at least to harden normal AP capped amunition.

Taper bore guns don't seem to have continued development after the war
with larger caliber guns firing sabots being used presumably becuase
the could fire big explosive shells at infantry.

Interestingly the Tiger I was widely admired for its high velocity
guns abillity to fire both solid AT and high explosive amunition which
was apparently quite rare. Thye Sherman Firefly with its 17 pounder
still needed 2 conventional Shermans as escorts becuase this gun could
not fire explosive shells. But for the shortage of tungsten amunition
the Germans would have prefered a smaller tank with a taper bore gun
rather than the 88mm which needed the massive 55 ton Tiger I tank to
carry.

Given the look of the smaller german taper bore the sPB 41 F (28mm and
117 kg on its carriage) an aerial firing version would have made a
deadly tank killer.
It was less than half the weight and had 50% more penetration than the
37mm Pak 36.

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
"Tamas Feher" wrote in message ...
the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.

Correction: a hungarian design from 1944.

Except for slightly W-shaped wing, the plane looked just like the A-10.
It was powered by two Jumo or BMW made 8kN turbines. It was 3/4th
completed, when the factory was overrun by the front. Supposedly the
plane's parts and drawings were captured by the USA and hauled overseas.

The three-view drawing of the plane was featured on the back cover of a
1976 copy of the hungarian monthly paper "Repules". It was quite unusual
for a communist state-run paper to feature a nazi plane at that time.

... when were US troops overrunning Hungary in 1945? The only attack
aircraft 3/4+ finished that was to use either a Jumo 004 or BMW 003
that was captured was the Hs-132. It bears no resemblence to the A-10
and is NOT of hungarian origin.
The only aircraft captured by the Luftwaffe in Hungary were Zlin
aircraft, most of which were gliders and obsolete types. What
Hungarian design are you refering to in the news article? AFAIK, no
German jet engines were destined for any Hungarian project. Only Italy
and Japan were to recieve those. Regianne never got theirs and the
Japanese IIRC only recieved photos and manuals from which they built
indigenous copies.

Rob

The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
good alloys.

Eunometic twisted the electrons to say:
Thye Sherman Firefly with its 17 pounder
still needed 2 conventional Shermans as escorts becuase this gun could
not fire explosive shells.

I think you'll find that the 17 pounder could fire high explosive rounds,
however the one available in WW2 was insufficiently reliable to issue.
In any case, it would be equally accurate to say that the "2 conventional
Shermans" needed the Firefly as an escort as their guns couldn't reliably
deal with the high end German armour ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Mullen" writes:
"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided
to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was
not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If
they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them
$100
a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build
it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do
to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first
place.

Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from.
Heavier
payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the
ET
and the SRBs.

Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
have their advantages, and their risks.

I can't think of any advantages to the STS's layout. What did you mean here?

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.

Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.

That is news to me. See for example:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

'Buran was first moved to the launch pad on 23 October 1988. The launch
commission met on 26 October 1988 and set 29 October 06:23 Moscow time for
the first flight of the first Buran orbiter (Flight 1K1). 51 seconds before
the launch, when control of the countdown switched to automated systems, a
software problem led the computer program to abort the lift-off. The problem
was found to be due to late separation of a gyro update umbilical. The
software problem was rectified and the next attempt was set for 15 November
at 06:00 (03:00 GMT). Came the morning, the weather was snow flurries with
20 m/s winds. Launch abort criteria were 15 m/s. The launch director decided
to press ahead anyway. After 12 years of development everything went
perfectly. Buran, with a mass of 79.4 tonnes, separated from the Block Ts
core and entered a temporary orbit with a perigee of -11.2 km and apogee of
154.2 km. At apogee Burn executed a 66.6 m/s manoeuvre and entered a 251 km
x 263 km orbit of the earth. In the payload bay was the 7150 kg module 37KB
s/n 37071. 140 minutes into the flight retrofire was accomplished with a
total delta-v of 175 m/s. 206 minutes after launch, accompanied by Igor Volk
in a MiG-25 chase plane, Buran touched down at 260 km/hr in a 17 m/s
crosswind at the Jubilee runway, with a 1620 m landing rollout. The
completely automatic launch, orbital manoeuvre, deorbit, and precision
landing of an airliner-sized spaceplane on its very first flight was an
unprecedented accomplishment of which the Soviets were justifiably proud. It
completely vindicated the years of exhaustive ground and flight test that
had debugged the systems before they flew.'

Could you be mistaken? Or is this fairly new info? If the latter, I would be
interested in knowing your source.

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.

Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions but
feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
figures?

And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of the
1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable abort
system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered a
nasty landing incident.

(I never mentioned Soyuz btw!)

There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
any safer than the STS.

Er.. how about the fact that the STS is currently grounded for safety
improvements after the last fatal crash? Leaving Soyuz as the world's only
manned orbital vehicle, other than the Chinese and maybe Bert Rutan!


I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit
while
they were ahead.

More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
booster)

Well sure. It is true that their country did collapse during the devlopment
of the Buran and Energia projects, leading to their cancellation. My point
was that this wasn't because they were inferior kit, quite the contrary.

John

Tamas Feher wrote:

If you give set of requirements to number of different
contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.

You mean:
Space Shuttle --Buran
Concorde -- Tu-144
F-15 -- MiG-25
Northrop A-9 -- Szu-25
etc.

Spies 'r' us!

Sepecat Jaguar --- Mitsubishi T-2 / F-1 (explain that one while yer at
it)

Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:59 -0500, "Emilio"
wrote:

From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
vehicles. That part is there design.

Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.

Requirement:
1) Able to house VW size gun.
2) Ability to loiter
3) Good visibility for ground attack
4) 2 power plant for reliability
5) Large Ordinance capacity
6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.

Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
wing, which can blocks large area of his view.

Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
requirements; long and skinny wing.

Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
Where do you mount it?

What's you're A-10 design look like?

Emilio.


Don't forget to add "your plane must be able to land gear-up and
extend it's gear with no power".

Well landing with gear up... hmmmm...oh i know, let's semi-expose them into the
airflow below the wing... like on a freaking DC-3 !!!

Extend with no power? Geee.... ya think if you balance the weights right, that
gravity and airflow might pull the suckers down.

Eunometic wrote:

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
"Tamas Feher" wrote in message ...
the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.

Correction: a hungarian design from 1944.

Except for slightly W-shaped wing, the plane looked just like the A-10.
It was powered by two Jumo or BMW made 8kN turbines. It was 3/4th
completed, when the factory was overrun by the front. Supposedly the
plane's parts and drawings were captured by the USA and hauled overseas.

The three-view drawing of the plane was featured on the back cover of a
1976 copy of the hungarian monthly paper "Repules". It was quite unusual
for a communist state-run paper to feature a nazi plane at that time.

... when were US troops overrunning Hungary in 1945? The only attack
aircraft 3/4+ finished that was to use either a Jumo 004 or BMW 003
that was captured was the Hs-132. It bears no resemblence to the A-10
and is NOT of hungarian origin.
The only aircraft captured by the Luftwaffe in Hungary were Zlin
aircraft, most of which were gliders and obsolete types. What
Hungarian design are you refering to in the news article? AFAIK, no
German jet engines were destined for any Hungarian project. Only Italy
and Japan were to recieve those. Regianne never got theirs and the
Japanese IIRC only recieved photos and manuals from which they built
indigenous copies.

Rob

The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
good alloys.

And which turboprop would that be? My understanding is the british did it first, and it
was in the 1940s.

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"John Mullen" writes:
"Emilio" wrote in message
...
Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided
to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply
was
not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If
they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them
$100
a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to
build
it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do
to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first
place.

Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from.
Heavier
payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the
ET
and the SRBs.

Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
have their advantages, and their risks.

I can't think of any advantages to the STS's layout. What did you mean
here?

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.

Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.

That is news to me. See for example:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

'Buran was first moved to the launch pad on 23 October 1988. The launch
commission met on 26 October 1988 and set 29 October 06:23 Moscow time for
the first flight of the first Buran orbiter (Flight 1K1). 51 seconds
before
the launch, when control of the countdown switched to automated systems, a
software problem led the computer program to abort the lift-off. The
problem
was found to be due to late separation of a gyro update umbilical. The
software problem was rectified and the next attempt was set for 15
November
at 06:00 (03:00 GMT). Came the morning, the weather was snow flurries with
20 m/s winds. Launch abort criteria were 15 m/s. The launch director
decided
to press ahead anyway. After 12 years of development everything went
perfectly. Buran, with a mass of 79.4 tonnes, separated from the Block Ts
core and entered a temporary orbit with a perigee of -11.2 km and apogee
of
154.2 km. At apogee Burn executed a 66.6 m/s manoeuvre and entered a 251
km
x 263 km orbit of the earth. In the payload bay was the 7150 kg module
37KB
s/n 37071. 140 minutes into the flight retrofire was accomplished with a
total delta-v of 175 m/s. 206 minutes after launch, accompanied by Igor
Volk
in a MiG-25 chase plane, Buran touched down at 260 km/hr in a 17 m/s
crosswind at the Jubilee runway, with a 1620 m landing rollout. The
completely automatic launch, orbital manoeuvre, deorbit, and precision
landing of an airliner-sized spaceplane on its very first flight was an
unprecedented accomplishment of which the Soviets were justifiably proud.
It
completely vindicated the years of exhaustive ground and flight test that
had debugged the systems before they flew.'

Could you be mistaken? Or is this fairly new info? If the latter, I would
be
interested in knowing your source.

Well, that was one, unmanned flight. Vs. numerous ones in shuttles that aged
over time, flew in different weather conditions, etc.

Challenger was done in partly by low temperature at launch, and the foam
that hit Columbia came off the external tank, Buran also has an external
booster unit in a similar location, strapped to the belly. Both accidents
happened after numerous successes. One cannot know Buran's true odds as one
for one is 100 percent. Like a batter hitting 1000 after two at bats, will
he still be batting 1000 at the middle of the season?

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.

Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions but
feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
figures?

Well there was that time one decompressed while still at very high altitude
during a landing. Not sure about others, but then again there are still
rumors that not all the Soviet era space stuff has come out as yet,
accidents, etc.

And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of the
1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
abort
system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered a
nasty landing incident.

Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger, any
survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces involved
in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could have
survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own mechanics
over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

Columbia's loss was from such a hit that I cannot be sure if any wing built
could have survived, with that kind of glide path and loss of heat
shielding. Is there any information on what Buran's heating characteristics
and glide path were intended to be, or recorded as during her flight?

(I never mentioned Soyuz btw!)

There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
any safer than the STS.

Er.. how about the fact that the STS is currently grounded for safety
improvements after the last fatal crash? Leaving Soyuz as the world's only
manned orbital vehicle, other than the Chinese and maybe Bert Rutan!

Burt. Like Burt "The Bandit" Reynolds. Plus Soyux has her own history, as I
mentioned.

I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit
while
they were ahead.

More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
booster)

Well sure. It is true that their country did collapse during the
devlopment
of the Buran and Energia projects, leading to their cancellation. My point
was that this wasn't because they were inferior kit, quite the contrary.

I am certain they were fine peices of equipment, but I would run one down at
the expense of the other. Energia is a fine piece of equipment - do they
still make them? Be the thing to get a Mars craft up there to orbit for
assembly.

John

"David E. Powell" wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote in message

And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of the
1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
abort
system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered a
nasty landing incident.

Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger, any
survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces involved
in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could have
survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own mechanics
over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay there until
NASA
can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter into orbit...

As to Challenger, my understanding of post accident investigations were that the
crew were pretty
much all recovered together, and still strapped to their seats in the cabin, and
that they may
have still been alive post explosion (though unconscious). An ejection seat
system that could have blown them clear
of the crew compartment in such a major system failure would possible have been
useful. Remember Columbia
originally flew with ejection seats for pilot and commander. It would not have
been impossible to design the orbiters
with ejection seats for all crew members (just need to design the deck panels to
blow away before the folks
on the lower level go rocketing upwards into the ceiling).